Project Case Cross-linguistically Leipzig, May 20-22, 2005 Typology of stative/active languages Split intransitives, experiencer objects and ‘transimpersonal’

Project Case Cross-linguistically

Leipzig, May 20-22, 2005

Typology of stative/active languages

Split intransitives, experiencer objects and ‘transimpersonal’

constructions:(re-)establishing the connection

Andrej Malchukov

Andrej Malchukov Typology of stative/active languages MPI Leipzig 22 May 2005 2

Introduction: Sapir’s proposal

Sapir’s proposal: ‘inactive’ (object inflecting) intransitive verbs in Amerindian languages should be better analysed as transitives: “Thus, forms like ‘I sleep’ or ‘I think’ could be understood as meaning properly ‘it sleeps me’, ‘It seems to me’” (Sapir 1917: 85).

That is an So pattern is analysed as “transimpersonal” (indefinite A) construction with experiencer object


Some problems Some obvious functional similarities:

Both So constructions and transimpersonal experiencer O constructions involve experiential predicates But also some problems (cf. Merlan 1985)

Structural in the former Experiencer is O, in the latter S former intransitive, the latter transitive

Functional ‘it sleeps me’ ???

Heterogeneity of split-S languages: agent/patient vs. active/stative (Mithun 1991) accusative based (So is a minor pattern) vs. ergative based (Sa is a minor pattern) (Nichols 1992).

Experiencer object constructions are transitive while split-intransitivity pertains in the first place to intransitives


However: The distinctions between So constructions,

on the one hand, and transimpersonal constructions (TIC) and object experiencer constructions (OEC), on the other hand, are not always clear-cut

Cf. Aikhenvald, Dixon & Onishi 2001 (eds.) on oblique experiencers as non-canonical subjects.

In spite of heterogeneity of split S languages most split-S languages are agent/patient rather

than active/stative (Mithun 1991) most split-S languages are accusative based in the

sense that So pattern is a minor class as compared to the open Sa class (Nichols 1992).


Outline of the talk Provide evidence that Sapir’s analysis can

be upheld, if Restricted to Split-S language where the

patientive subject pattern is a minor pattern A connection between So pattern and transitive

patterns (TIC and EOC) is understood in diachronic terms

Present evidence from languages where Split-S pattern arose from reanalysis of

transimpersonal and Object-experiencer constructions

where object experiencers can be analysed as non-canonical subjects


Slave: TIC without Split-S

A construction with unspecified human subject pronoun in Slave:

Slave (Rice 1989: 1020)ts’e-jI‘someone is singing’k’ínase-ts’e-reyo‘someone chased him/her; s/he is chased’

NB clearly distinct from split-S (note the overt AGR/A marker –ts’e- ), but not the quasi-passive

interpretation of TIC.


Extension of TIC: Eskimo In West Greenlandic transimpersonal

construction (TIC) restricted to weather verbs

West Greenlandic (Fortescue 1984: 59-61)Anurliup-patigutstorm-3A->1pO.IND‘When we were caught by storm (lit. it stormed us)’


Extension of TIC: Eskimo In (Siberian) Yupik TIC is extended to other

verb types to indicate lack of control:

Yupik (Emeljanova 1967; cf. Vaxtin 1995)

Tagnygak axwasag-taachild.ABS crawl-3->3‘The child crawled’

NB similar to So pattern functionally (indicates lack of control), but different structurally (AGR clearly transitive). Therefore rather extended use of TIC than Split-S.


TIC reanalysed as split-S: Tunica In Tunica (Haas 1941) So intransitives in

inchoative forms are constructed as transimpersonals

it-sickens-me ‘I become sick’

Haas’ conclusion: ‘involuntary action verbs developed from transimpersonals’ (Haas 1941: 59)


Split-S originating from EOC: Koasati

Koasati is considered split intransitive on the basis of its

agreement system (cf. Mithun 1999: 237-8). the case system is accusative though

An So verb:(Anó-k) ca-libatli-t(I-NOM) 1sg.obj-burn-past‘I got burned’


Split-S originating from EOC: Koasati

Morphologically, however, So verbs look like plain transitives (Kimball 1991: 251).

Cf.:

ca-libatli-t1sg.obj-burn-past‘I got burned’Nihahci ikba-k ca-libatli-tGrease hot-NOM 1sg.obj-burn-past‘The hot grease burned me’


Conclusion on Koasati

Kimball’s conclusion: the So pattern originated from reanalysis of impersonal 3 sg forms

Note what features facilitated reanalysis: So is marked by AGRo 3pA marker is zero

But the same pattern attested in many other Split-S languages


Other Split-S languages: Ika Other Split-S languages with zero 3rd p. zero A

markers: Dakota (Boas & Deloria 1941, 76), Guarani (Gregores & Suárez 1967: 131), Ika (Frank 1985: 11)

Ika (Frank 1985: 11) So pattern

Na-’tikuma-na1sgO-forget-DIST

‘I forgot’ A transitive pattern

Na-tsua-na1sgO-see-DIST‘He saw me’


Other Split-S languages: Haida

Haida (Enrico 2003, 93) Split-S in free/clitical pronoun marking

There are no overt inanimate (‘low potency’) agentive pronouns


Other Split-S languages: Kiowa

Kiowa: restricted suppression of A agreement with experiential verbs:

yą-tây (Watkins 1980: 137)(2,3sg.A+)1sg.P+pl.O-awake.pf‘I awoke/smth woke me’

Watkins considers them as intransitives (thus, Split-S), although clearly modelled on transitives

(or even di-transitives, with a dummy O marker)


Conclusions on reanalysis:

Thus reanalysis is facilitated, if So is marked by AGRo 3pA marker (one of the markers,

often inanimate if a language has one) is zero.

NB then a transitive pattern is formally indistinguishable from intransitive


TICs as semitransitives: Navaho Even if transitive/intransitive distinction is

marked otherwise, does not necessary prevent reanalysis, as TIC can reveal transitivity decrease

Navaho allows an intransitive marker (“classifier”) in the Indefinite A construction: (Kibrik 1996: 291)

Né-í-ø-ł-zho?Md-3/ACC-3/NOM-TRANS-hunt.IT‘He repeatedly hunts it’Ná-ø-?á-l-zho?Md-3/ACC-IND/NOM-DETRANS-hunt.IT‘Someone repeatedly hunts it’

Kibrik (1996) A indefinitensess as another transitivity parameter (in the sense of Hopper & Thompson 1980)


From Experiencer Object constructions to Split-S: Papuan languages

In Papuan languages objects in EOC tend to be reanalysed as non-canonical subjects

Usan (Reesink 1987: 139)Munon isig toar wA-r-a in-Ab igoman old sickness him-shoot-3s.DS lie-SS be.3sg.pres‘The old man is sick and lying down’

NB. Experiential verbs similar to ordinary transitives, but differ in that Experiencer/Goal unlike other objects always in the first topic position


Reanalysis in Papuan languages: Amele

EOC in Amele similar to Usan:

Amele (Roberts 1987, 315).Ija wen ø–te-na1sg hunger (AUX-)1sg-3sg-PRES‘I am hungry’

But note that V is grammaticalized (phonetically zero).

Apart from (topic) position, the experiencer reveals (most) other subject properties:

intraclausal (reflexivization, etc) interclausal (control of switch-reference,

etc)


Conclusion on Papuan languages In Papuan languages EOC tend to develop

into a construction with subject experiencers (cf. Roberts 2001 on non-canonical experiencer subjects in Amele)

The Amele pattern where the subject experiencer cross-referenced through object AGR is similar to an So pattern in a typical

split-S language


EOC reanalysis: beyond split intransitivity I

Evidence for diachronic instability of the EOC constructions

A-absorption in EOC in Iwadjan. Different degrees of grammaticalization/reanalysis (Evans 2004).

Pattern I. ‘Subcategorized nominal subject’Nga-ni-ma-ny wunyarru1O-3mA-get-P sickness‘I got sick (lit. ‘sickness got me’)

Here the transitive EOC construction similar to the Papuan pattern


Experiencer O absorption in Iwadjan II

Pattern II: ‘frozen nominal subject’Nga-ni-mi-ny ngok1O-3mA-get-P ?‘I am full’

NB the formal subject ngok is not attested outside this construction


Experiencer O incorporation in Iwadjan III

Pattern III: “dummy subject construction”:

I-ni-marruku-n3mO-3mA-make.wet-NP‘He is sweating’

This construction is clearly (trans)impersonal NB a diachronic instability of the EOC.

Motivation: downgrading/omission of non-prominent A.


EOC beyond split intransitivity II:

Covert reanalysis of EOC in Germanic

English please -> like reanalysis (Jesperson 1927; Lightfoot 1979, Faarlund 1990)

ðam cynge licodon peran -> the king liked pears

Swedish and German (Seefranz-Montag 1983): Det lyckades honom -> han lyckades ‘I

manage’ Mich hungert -> ich hungere ‘I am hungry’Motivation for reanalysis: upgrading of a

prominent (animate) O.


EOC beyond split intransitivity III

Reanalysis of EOC/TIC in Himalayan Tibetan languages: a frequent pattern

with Goal/Object-experiencers (Cf. Bickel 2003)

Transimpersonals in Limbu: default AGR with non-referential A.

Limbu (van Driem 1987: 75): Khengha? MoyusiThey inebriate.3P.3s->3ns‘they are drunk ‘(lit. it inebriates them)


Reanalysis in Himalayan II: Yamphu

Yamphu (Rutgers 1998: 109) If experiencer is 3rd p. pattern as EOC (experiencer

cross-referenced by a transitive AGR):Wai?m-æ? si-s-w-e?thirst-ERG attach-3 ->3.FCT‘Is he thirsty?’ If experiencer is 1st/2nd p. takes an intransitive

AGR:Sag-æ? sis-iŋ-mahunger-ERG attach-EXPS-1PL‘We were hungry’ NB a split-S system, complicated by a person split. Motivation for reanalysis: upgrading of a prominent

(1,2 person) experiencers.


EOC beyond split-S IV: from indefinite A to (impersonal) passive

From indefinite A to (impersonal) passive (Greenberg 1959; Shibatani 1985 ):

Ainu (Tamura 2000: 71; cf. Shibatani 1985)Itak-anSpeak-1pl‘One speaks’a-e-kóyki naIn/S2sg/O-scold MOD‘you will be scolded/one will scold you’

NB construction impersonal: O is still cross-referenced by AGRo.


From indefinite A to impersonal passive: Ainu

If an agentive phrase is used, it is clear that the indefinite A construction is reanalysed as a passive:

Ainu (Tamura 2000: 72):Unuhu oro wa an-kóykiMother place from Ind/S-scold‘He was scolded by (his) mother’

NB looks like a personal passive, but O has few subject properties apart from positional (Shibatani

1985: 824)


Further reanalysis to personal passive: Iraqw

In Iraqw indefinite A construction is used as impersonal:

Iraqw (Mous 1992: 137, 138)ta-na haníis tsat’iIMPS-PAST give.3SM.PAST knives‘They gave knives’ or ‘Knives were given’ NB also possible with an agent phrase Under O topicalization as a personal

passive:‘ameena ta-n nahhaatwomen(F) IMPS-EXPEC hide-PRES‘Women were hidden/hid themselves’


From indefinite A to impersonal passive: other languages

Indefinite (impersonal) passives Greenberg (1959): on Maasai, Givon (1979): Kimbundu Shibatani (1985): on indefinite passives:

Ainu, Trukic, Indonesian

Motivation for reanalysis: downgrading of indefinite A (cf. Shibatani on A-defocussing), promotes reanalysis to an impersonal structure; (under O topicalization can develop further to personal)


Conclusion: EOC and TIC in a broader context

Universal functional pressure for reanalysis of EOC and TIC, due to

syntactic downgrading of non-prominent (indefinite, inanimate, cognate) A of TIC

syntactic upgrading of a prominent (animate) O of EOC


Functional factours and structural outcome: Split-S

But these universal functional factors will yield a split-S system only under particular structural conditions:

AGRo marking if AGRo unmarked, more likely covert reanalysis

(please-> like).

AGRs is zero marked if AGRs over then rather as extended

transimpersonal constructions (cf. Eskimo, Yamphu), or else reanalysed as a Passive (Ainu, Iraqw)


Role of the structural factors: an illustration

A consistently ergative language cannot develop a split-S structure: rather experiencer O upgrading will lead to

formation of (S/O) labile verbs(NP/erg) NP/abs V-agr/abs

Note that this grammatically ambiguous structure, allows for covert reanalysis of the ABS-marked object-experiencers as subject-experiencers


General conclusion Unlike the approaches which motivate

Split-S pattern through role-domination (direct mapping from semantic functions to case-marking), I regard it as a secondary phenomena which may arise through a conspiracy of

universal functional tendencies language particular structural properties


A final qualification

This scenario for the rise of Split-S pattern from reanalysis of transitives (transimpersonals, experiencer object verbs) applies only for languages where

So is a minor pattern (i.e. Sa-based) the split has an agent/patient than

active/stative basis For Split-S languages which are So based (with

Sa as a deviant pattern) another explanations. The latter pattern may also be secondary: result

from reanalysis of a transitive construction with a cognate O (cf. Basque, Georgian, etc.)

Documents

Project Case Cross-linguistically Leipzig, May 20-22, 2005 Typology of stative/active languages Split intransitives, experiencer objects and ‘transimpersonal’